MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W203518869 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.29.4.05

A deprivation index for health planning in Canada

2009· article· en· W203518869 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Pampalon, Denis Hamel, Philippe Gamache, Guy Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueChronic diseases in Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMinistère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusSocial deprivationIndex (typography)Metropolitan areaUrban agglomerationInequalityMedicineGeographyRegional scienceSocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthGerontologyDemographyEconomic growthEconomic geographyPopulationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Administrative databases in the Canadian health sector do not contain socio-economic information. To facilitate the monitoring of social inequalities for health planning, this study proposes a material and social deprivation index for Canada. After explaining the concept of deprivation, we describe the methodological aspects of the index and apply it to the example of premature mortality (i.e. death before the age of 75). We illustrate variations in deprivation and the links between deprivation and mortality nationwide and in different geographic areas including the census metropolitan areas (CMAs) of Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver; other CMAs; average-size cities, referred to as census agglomerations (CAs); small towns and rural communities; and five regions of Canada, namely Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. Material and social deprivation and their links to mortality vary considerably by geographic area. We comment on the results as well as the limitations of the index and its advantages for health planning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.019
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations560
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChronic diseases in CanadaSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207